4 ms·

I'm the other way around. I've always found it very hard to convince myself of when and how exactly collectivism is better than individualism. To me, one person

by jd115 6y ago

I'm the other way around. I've always found it very hard to convince myself of when and how exactly collectivism is better than individualism. To me, one person is infinitely powerful. Add more than one and limitations begin. By the time you get to the "masses" there's practically no power left and the ability to act productively is so watered down that nothing of unique value is ever achieved (only more of the same). This is not AT ALL to say I don't enjoy cooperation and working / playing together with other people with different viewpoints or alternative perspectives. That's one of the best parts of living on this planet. So I'm not saying there's no value in others, or even that I could exist without others. But I AM saying I only value others for their individualism.

endisneigh 6y ago
I assume you work for an organization (whether it's a company, or informal group). I also assume this group is more effective due to the fact that it's organized vs. all of you attempting the same things alone. With that said, I'm not really sure I understand your position. Could you elaborate? I especially don't understand the "add more than one and limitations begin." That can definitely be true, but is not inherently so.
jhedwards 6y ago
There's a rather fun sort of paradox here. For example, I just finished reading a book on Maxwell and Faraday, and they were both ambitious individuals who pursued their own view of things with little regard for the consensus of their day. It was to some extent due to their radical individualism that they were so revolutionary. On the other hand, they were both built up by other people. They had their influences, their sponsors, their teachers and their friends. They lived in a society that put value on and supported individuals doing science. So I think I agree with you, but with the addition that there needs to be a group that nurtures individuals for them to be effective. This is, I believe, the reason there was no scientific revolution in China despite the high level of development there for so long: individual accomplishments were inevitably done in service to the emperor, so revolutionary changes were discouraged, even feared, in favor of technology to maintain the harmony of society.

by jd115 6y ago

endisneigh 6y ago

I assume you work for an organization (whether it's a company, or informal group). I also assume this group is more effective due to the fact that it's organized vs. all of you attempting the same things alone. With that said, I'm not really sure I understand your position. Could you elaborate? I especially don't understand the "add more than one and limitations begin." That can definitely be true, but is not inherently so.

jhedwards 6y ago

There's a rather fun sort of paradox here. For example, I just finished reading a book on Maxwell and Faraday, and they were both ambitious individuals who pursued their own view of things with little regard for the consensus of their day. It was to some extent due to their radical individualism that they were so revolutionary. On the other hand, they were both built up by other people. They had their influences, their sponsors, their teachers and their friends. They lived in a society that put value on and supported individuals doing science. So I think I agree with you, but with the addition that there needs to be a group that nurtures individuals for them to be effective. This is, I believe, the reason there was no scientific revolution in China despite the high level of development there for so long: individual accomplishments were inevitably done in service to the emperor, so revolutionary changes were discouraged, even feared, in favor of technology to maintain the harmony of society.